When Wearing a Mask Is (Not) the Norm: Political Partisanship and Persuasion in the Context of COVID-19

References

• Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N., & Hensen, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 906–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.906
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., Hutchison, P., & Viki, G. T. (2005). When bad becomes good (and vice versa): Why social exclusion is not based on difference. In D. Abrams, M. A. Hogg, & J. M. Marques (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 161–189). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Avery, E. J. (2010). The role of source and the factors audiences rely on in evaluating credibility of health information. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 81–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldry, J. G., Gaertner, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). Measuring the measures: A meta-analytic investigation of the measures of outgroup homogeneity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207075153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Persuasion: Insights from the self-validation hypothesis. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 69–118). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00402-4
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022.3514.85.5.808
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., Ognyanova, K., Baum, M. A., Lazer, D., Perlis, R. H., Volpe, J. D., Santillana, M., Chwe, H., Quintana, A., & Simonson, M. (2021). The role of race, religion, and partisanship in misperceptions about COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220985912
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Process theories of attitude formation and change: The elaboration likelihood and heuristic-systematic models. In A. H. Eagly & S. Chaiken (Eds.), The psychology of attitudes (pp. 305–349). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
   Google Scholar
• Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14792779343000004
   Google Scholar
• Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory, 16(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00003.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Giles, H. (2012). Norm talk and identity in intergroup communication. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 395–410). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hornsey, M. J., & Imani, A. (2004). Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261295
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, F. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 812–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.812
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, D. M., Gastardo-Conaco, M. C., & Skelly, J. J. (1992). Knowledge of the advocated position and the processing of in-group and out-group persuasive messages. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(2), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292182005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, D. M., & Queller, S. (1999). The impact of group membership on persuasion: Revisiting “who says what to whom with what effect. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 135–155). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The ‘black sheep effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perceptions of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000011
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2019). Trust and distrust in America. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2020a). Republicans, Democrats move even further apart in coronavirus concerns. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center.(2020b). Trust in medical scientists has grown in U.S., but mainly among Democrats. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/05/21/trust-in-medical-scientists-has-grown-in-u-s-but-mainly-among-democrats/
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J. R., & Hogg, M. A. (2008). Social identity and attitudes. In W. D. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 337–360). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering social groups: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell
   Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg, D., & Wilke, H. (1992). Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Group norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 157–170). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar